Editor of journal Tobacco Control refuses to discuss the issues
- Thread starter Vocalek
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Expendable, yet still lucrative. Makes you wonder if they even buy their own claims about the cessation and death rates - they seem pretty secure with the idea that the money will keep flowing in.
Last edited:
But they have a legitimate fear that WE will upset their apple cart.
And I believe we will.
Wow, seems she is really just throwing a tantrum because it didn't go her way!
Well all she was asking for was for the FDA to refuse to follow the law that gave them the authority to regulate tobacco, and for tobacco company executives to unilaterally decide that their company is going to stop selling cigarettes. Uh-huh. That'll fly with the board of the directors and the stockholders.
But they have a legitimate fear that WE will upset their apple cart.
And I believe we will.
I think we already have, they missed their big chance when they lost the court case in 2009 as that allowed the vaping community to grow large enough to fight back and we are winning when we stick together. Look at the petition this time, the first one almost didn't make 5000 in time, this one made 25000 with a week to spare. That means there are more people who will write letters with facts in them and as long as the people who get them are not died in the wool ANTZ they will listen. We have to keep informing people of the studies that are out there and let our congress critters know how we feel.
Don't be a cretan. She's a PhD, not an MD. PhD's were never even so bold to call themselves doctors until the past few decades. Even nowadays, the use of "Doctor" for PhD's is a courtesy not a title. For the record, Ms. Malone is perfectly correct.
If you disagree, take it up with Emily Post.
What do you mean "we"?
Last edited:
I am shocked to see you talking about Public Health advocates and the Ms. Malone (or even the FDA) as though there was some relationship there!
American Association of Public Health Physicians
As of April 2010, The American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP) supports electronic cigarettes sales to adults "because the possibility exists to save the lives of four million of the eight million current adult American smokers who will otherwise die of a tobacco-related illness over the next twenty years." However, the AAPHP is against sales to minors.[32] The AAPHP recommends that the FDA reclassify the electronic cigarette as a tobacco product (as opposed to a drug/device combination).[33][34]
Check out American Association of Public Health Physicians - Tobacco
careful Berylanna, you might be classified as part of the ANTZ movement saying things like that.
Vocalek is just trying to smear someone because she couldn't impose her will on Malone. If you noticed, she didn't criticize Godshall for not participating in a rigged event, but she did with Malone. And I'm not fan of Malone, but I will call it like I see it...
…careful Berylanna, you might be classified as part of the ANTZ movement saying things like that.
I think you might need new glasses then. Facilitating communication between all involved parties, is quite different than someone editing your presentation. Though I also see nothing wrong with what Berylanna said. As adults we can agree on somethings and not on all things.
I believe Berylanna was feigning shock at Elaine's suggestion that Malone and the FDA qualify as a public health advocates.
May I ask how long you have been vaping and involved in THR advocacy? (I don't want to assume your ECF post count is an accurate indication of your expertise and knowledge.)…careful Berylanna, you might be classified as part of the ANTZ movement saying things like that.
Do you have more experience in dealing with the FDA and/or BT than Malone does? Some things have change, but some things haven't. If you have ever been apart of proceedings like those, then you know there are ways to prevent someone from presenting their material and/or perspective, which is essentially the same thing as editing a presentation. Especially, when there is no INDEPENDENT third party over sight...
First, I think you mean "c r e t i n ", unless you think I am from the island of Crete?
Second, Emily Post agrees with me:
"Socially as well as professionally, medical doctors, dentists, and other professionals are addressed by, and introduced with, their titles. People who have earned a Ph.D. or any other academic, nonmedical doctoral degree have the choice of whether to use "Dr." both professionally and socially. If, when meeting people with doctorates, you're unsure how to address them, "Dr." is always correct. If they'd rather the title be dropped, they will let you know."
http://www.emilypost.com/communicat...cial-names-and-titles/774-professional-titles
Finally, I mean "we" as in "We people who are discussing women who have doctoral degrees and who have not indicated to us that they would rather the title be dropped."
Bertrand Russell on spelling: "In the first plane, there is no point whatever in being able to spell anything… Spelling is thought desirable partly for snobbish reason, as an easy way of distinguishing the 'educated' from the 'uneducated'; partly, like correct clothes, as a part of herd domination; partly because the devotee of natural law feels pain in the spectacle of any sphere in which individual liberty remain…. In the second place, the written language, except in China, is representative of the spoken language, in which resides the whole aesthetic quality of literature. In the days when men retained the feeling that language could and should be beautiful, they were careless of spelling, but careful of pronunciation. Now, even persons of university education do not know how to pronounce any but the commonest words…"
Let's see: "herd domination" and discomfort with "individual liberty." Sound like anyone we know?
Shakespeare and Milton could not spell; you can. Ms. Malone probably can. My compliments to both of you.
Nice. You can Google. A close reading of this paragraph indicates that "Dr." is optional as a prefix for non-medical doctorate degrees, based on the preference of the individual. Excluding the "Dr." is also always correct.
From the print edition of Emily Post's Etiquette (Post, Elizabeth L. "Use of 'Doctor'" Emily Post's Etiquette, Twelfth Revised Edition. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1969. p19), it indicates the following: "When the title "Doctor" indicates a degree required for the practice of a profession, as in medicine, dentistry, or veterinary medicine, it is used instead of "Mister" at all times. An earned title indicate that a man or woman has received a doctorate in divinity, philosophy, literature, etc. is always used professionally…. But in any situation where other people are introduced as "Mr.," "Mrs.," or "Miss" rather than by first names, it is a mark of recognition and respect to use the title "Doctor." The distinction, then, is in the social setting rather than in the type of degree"
A more recent edition of Emily Post's Etiquette (Post, Peggy. "Professional Women in Social Situations" Emily Post's Etiquette, 16th Edition. New York: HarperCollins, 1997. p307, concurs: "A woman who has earned a law degree, Ph.D. or any other academic degree may or may not choose to use the title "Dr." professionally…. In a formal situation, however, where other people are introduced by title and last names…, it is a mark of recognition and respect to use the title "Dr." The distinction, in that case, is in the social setting rather than in the type of degree."
So unless you consider comments and posts on web-based forums used mostly for chatting to be a formal or professional context, the question of "Dr." vs "Ms." resolves to whether commenters want to use refer to Ms. Malone using a title that reflects "recognition and respect." You may want to, but your comment "For the record, it is Dr. Malone" is patently incorrect insofar as it implies that there is an objective reason that somehow obliges commenters to refer to Ms. Malone in such a manner.
Perhaps you should buy Emily Post's Etiquette and brush up on your manners.
That's a relief. I thought you were referring to people who object to terms like "the bad guys" or "garbage man" based on the supposition that they're sexist.
Last edited:
Or, my Dad, who was "Dr. Father-of-Goblin" in professional settings but "Mr. Father-of-Goblin" in social settings, made an exception when I was in the hospital (at 18 months old) for minor surgery and the parents of a child in isolation for something serious and contagious wanted to come and pet and hold me because "I was so cute."
He said "No, you can't do that."
They said "Who do you think you are to tell us no?"
Dad, being a non-confrontational type outside of work, answered "Dr. Father-of-Goblin"
They said "Oh, OK."
Like him being my Dad should not be enough to defend me against contagion! But I think promoting this confusion was forgivable in that case.
I have noticed a lot of FDA "doctors" are J.D.'s. Funny, my cousin is a lawyer and she puts "Esquire" after her name and NEVER refers to herself as a doctor.
My apologies, I didn't see your post, and thank you for the professionalism. I've only been vaping for less than a year and my advocacy is minimal. My views are from a lawyer's perspective, with a slight influence from the medical profession. My experience is from being on variety of Boards: social, political and corporate. I'm not an expert, just someone who has to speak on tobacco alternatives for policies and procedures in the private sector.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
I'm going to guess that you have been mostly informed/educated/trained by people with agendas.
After spending awhile on this forum, you might just find that your views will change.
careful Berylanna, you might be classified as part of the ANTZ movement saying things like that.
I was expressing frustration. I have no way of imposing my will on Malone. Malone does have a way of imposing her will on all of us who practice tobacco harm reduction. She controls the articles that get published in one of two major scientific journals dedicated to tobacco (Tobacco Control). More importantly, she controls the articles that do not get published--any articles that have something favorable to say about e-cigarettes or smoke-free tobacco products. I know authors who have been asked to remove positive statements from their articles as a condition for publication. That's a lot of power.
She indicates that she believes that the FDA is in cahoots with tobacco companies. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The tobacco industry has 3 seats on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC - pronounced "tip sack.) One seat is for tobacco product manufacturers, one seat for tobacco growers, and one for non-tobacco products that support the manufacture of tobacco products (e.g., packaging, labeling, etc.) None of these three seats has a vote.
There are NO seats on TPSAC to represent the interests of consumers--not even a non-voting seat. Consumers didn't even get an invitation to participate in the dialog, and there sits Malone, who did get an invitation, thumbing her nose at the opportunity to speak her mind freely at the workshop.
The Guidance document for approval of Modified Risk Tobacco Products outlines a set of tests and clinical trials that will take years to complete and cost millions, if not billions, of dollars. It may be impossible to complete all these tests, because the organizations that conduct these types of tests and clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry (e.g., universities, scientific research companies, etc.) have instituted a policy against acceptance of funding from tobacco companies.
Third Party Governance, the subject of this workshop, is a requirement for tobacco companies to hire outside neutral organizations to oversee the research. If there are no outside neutral parties that will accept tobacco company funding, this means that the entire MRTP idea is dead in the water--which would suit Malone just fine, because she believes that smokers should have only two choices: Quit (completely) or die. So perhaps it is all for the best that Dr. Malone turned down the invitation.
I have signed up to be one of the members of the public testifying at the Workshop. I have been given 10 minutes to say my piece. In all of the other hearings and workshops that I have attended, the invited speakers are given at least half an hour to say what they want to say. They can also ask questions, which members of the audience cannot do.
Frankly, it frosts me that the FDA refuses to consider consumers a legitimate stakeholder in these proceedings. We are the stakeholders who have the most to lose if no MRTPs are approved or if the FDA decides to impose regulations that make such products less acceptable as a replacement for smoking. Our very lives are at stake.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
